modelling plant response to nitrogen atmospheric deposition in some french ecosystems: progress and...
TRANSCRIPT
Modelling plant response to nitrogen atmospheric deposition in some French ecosystems: progress and limits
Simon RIZZETTO1,2, Salim BELYAZID3, Noémie GAUDIO1,2, Arnaud MANSAT1,2, Harald SVERDRUP4, Anne PROBST1,2
En collaboration avec : Jean-Claude GÉGOUT5, Emmanuel CORCKET6, Didier ALARD6, Manuel NICOLAS7
1 Toulouse University; INP, UPS; EcoLab (Laboratoire écologie fonctionnelle et environnement) ENSAT, Avenue de l’Agrobiopole F-31326 Castanet Tolosan, France2 CNRS; EcoLab F-31326 Castanet Tolosan3 Belyazid Consulting and Communication AB Österportsgatan 5C S-21128 Malmö, Sweden4 Applied Systems Analysis and Dynamics Group, Chemical Engineering, Lund University, Box 124 S-22100 Lund, Sweden5 UMR LERFoB, AgroParisTech – ENGREF – INRA, 14 rue Girardet, F54042 Nancy cedex, France6 UMR BioGeco, INRA, Université Bordeaux1, Site de Recherches Forêt Bois de Pierroton, 69 route d'Arcachon, 33612
CESTAS Cedex – France7 Office National des Forêts, Direction Forêts et Risques Naturels, Département R&D, Boulevard de Constance, F-77300
Fontainebleau, France
24TH CCE WORKSHOP AND 30TH TASK FORCE MEETING / Simon RIZZETTORome, 7th April 2014 2
Context
Improvement of the modelling approach
EUNIS habitats classification
final goals = to formulate nitrogen dose-response relationships at a regional scaleto upscale from individual sitesto quantify “no net loss of biodiversity”
Plants ecological response,biodiversity indicators
Coupled biogeochemical – ecological modellingImpact of atmospheric deposition scenarios on forest
ecosystems
VEG table Species richness
National scaleICP forest network
ForSAFE-VEG modelimprovement of input dataclimate change scenarios
24TH CCE WORKSHOP AND 30TH TASK FORCE MEETING / Simon RIZZETTORome, 7th April 2014 3
Presentation outline
I) Material and methods: i. sites presentationii. input deposition scenariosiii. model and validation
II) Results:i. resultsii. analysis
III) Prospects:i. biodiversity indicesii. vegetation response
24TH CCE WORKSHOP AND 30TH TASK FORCE MEETING / Simon RIZZETTORome, 7th April 2014 4
I.i. Sites presentation
Data source:
French ICP-Forest Network (ONF – RENECOFOR)
- Part of the European network for forest health survey (since 1992)
- Hundred forest sites
Number of sites
Operation types
102 Site description
Trees inventory and dendrometric measures
Dendrochronology
Observations: defoliation, pathological symptoms…
Phenology
Take litter fall samples
Leaves analysis
2 soils description and analysis
Inventories of vegetation ecology
Meteorological data
Phytoecological surveys, list of plants
17 Open field and throughfall deposition
Fog analysis
Soil solution concentration and fluxes
24TH CCE WORKSHOP AND 30TH TASK FORCE MEETING / Simon RIZZETTORome, 7th April 2014 5
I.i. EUNIS classification
1 Leguédois, Sophie and Party, Jean-Paul and Dupouey, Jean-Luc and Gauquelin, T. and Gégout, Jean-Claude and Lecareux, Caroline and Badeau, Vincent and Probst, Anne La carte de végétation du CNRS à l'ère du numérique. (2011) European Journal of Geography . ISSN 1278-3366
Two methods: EUNIS = Corine land cover 2006 x
Ü0 125 250 375 50062,5Kilometers
French potential vegetation (Leguédois et al., 20101)
Map of French EUNIS forest habitats Some problems
e.g.: Spruce site in G1.6 (Fagus woodland) !!
exhaustive plant species list on each site (ICP forest network)
use of EUNIS key to determine habitats
Similarity Or correspondence problem
24TH CCE WORKSHOP AND 30TH TASK FORCE MEETING / Simon RIZZETTORome, 7th April 2014 6
I.i. Sites selection
code_place Essence Intitule_EUNIS_niveau3 lambertx lamberty Type niveau_1 niveau_2 niveau_3 niveau_4 niveau_5
CHS41 Chêne sessileBoisements acidophiles dominés par Quercus 518900 2286000 M G G1 G1.8 G1.85
CPS77Mélange Chêne pédonculé - sessile
Boisements acidophiles dominés par Quercus 628100 2383900 M G G1 G1.8
G1.81, G1.85
EPC08 Epicéa communPlantations très artificielles de conifères 777600 2552800 M G G3 G3.F G3.F1 G3.F11
EPC63 Epicéa communPlantations très artificielles de conifères 648900 2084000 M G G3 G3.F G3.F1 G3.F11
EPC87 Epicéa communPlantations très artificielles de conifères 559400 2088900 M G G3 G3.F G3.F1 G3.F11
HET30 Hêtre Hêtraies 696600 1902100 F G G1 G1.6 G1.67 G1.672
HET64 Hêtre Hêtraies 355900 1798700 M G G1 G1.6 G1.62G1.622 à 624
SP05 Sapin pectiné Forêts mixtes à Abies-Picea-Fagus 927900 1951700 F G G4 G4.6 SP11 Sapin pectiné Forêts mixtes à Abies-Picea-Fagus 580600 1762600 F G G4 G4.6 SP38 Sapin pectiné Boisements à Picea et à Abies 896900 2053800 F G G3 G3.1 G3.13 G3.132
SP57 Sapin pectiné Boisements à Picea et à Abies 953600 2411900 F G G3 G3.1 G3.13 G3.1321SP68 Sapin pectiné Boisements à Picea et à Abies 957500 2337000 F G G3 G3.1 G3.13 G3.132
Selection of 3 sites: Sessile oak, Norway spruce, Silver fir
code_place Essence Intitule_EUNIS_niveau3 lambertx lamberty Type niveau_1 niveau_2 niveau_3 niveau_4 niveau_5
CHS41 Chêne sessileBoisements acidophiles dominés par Quercus 518900 2286000 M G G1 G1.8 G1.85
CPS77Mélange Chêne pédonculé - sessile
Boisements acidophiles dominés par Quercus 628100 2383900 M G G1 G1.8
G1.81, G1.85
EPC08 Epicéa communPlantations très artificielles de conifères 777600 2552800 M G G3 G3.F G3.F1 G3.F11
EPC63 Epicéa communPlantations très artificielles de conifères 648900 2084000 M G G3 G3.F G3.F1 G3.F11
EPC87 Epicéa communPlantations très artificielles de conifères 559400 2088900 M G G3 G3.F G3.F1 G3.F11
HET30 Hêtre Hêtraies 696600 1902100 F G G1 G1.6 G1.67 G1.672
HET64 Hêtre Hêtraies 355900 1798700 M G G1 G1.6 G1.62G1.622 à 624
SP05 Sapin pectiné Forêts mixtes à Abies-Picea-Fagus 927900 1951700 F G G4 G4.6 SP11 Sapin pectiné Forêts mixtes à Abies-Picea-Fagus 580600 1762600 F G G4 G4.6 SP38 Sapin pectiné Boisements à Picea et à Abies 896900 2053800 F G G3 G3.1 G3.13 G3.132
SP57 Sapin pectiné Boisements à Picea et à Abies 953600 2411900 F G G3 G3.1 G3.13 G3.1321SP68 Sapin pectiné Boisements à Picea et à Abies 957500 2337000 F G G3 G3.1 G3.13 G3.132
SiteTree
dominant species
EUNIS habitat Loc. Altitude Type level_1 level_2 level_3 level_4 level_5
CHS41 Sessile oak Acidophilous Quercus dominated woodland North-W 127 m M G G1 G1.8 G1.85
EPC87 Norway spruce
Highly artificial coniferous plantations Center-W 650 m M G G3 G3.F G3.F1 G3.F11
SP57 Silver fir Abies and Picea woodlands North-E 400 m F G G3 G3.1 G3.13 G3.132
24TH CCE WORKSHOP AND 30TH TASK FORCE MEETING / Simon RIZZETTORome, 7th April 2014 7
I.ii. Input deposition scenarios
sites Oakscenarios BKG
< Spruce < Fir (for measured and modeled values) < MFR < GP < CLE (for all sites and all pollutants)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100Dep
ositi
on (e
q.ha
-1.y
r-1)
Année
Input deposition scenarios
CLE
GP
MFR
BKD
24TH CCE WORKSHOP AND 30TH TASK FORCE MEETING / Simon RIZZETTORome, 7th April 2014 8
I.iii. Presentation of the model
19th biennal ISEM Conference / Simon RIZZETTOToulouse, 28th October 2013 9
INPUTSVegetation database = VEG Table (species ecological requirements)
INPUTSClimateSoilForest managementNitrogen deposition
VEGEcological model
I.iii. ForSAFE-VEG: Biogeochemical-ecological coupled model
ForSAFEBiogeochemical model
OUTPUTS
OUTPUTS = cover, species composition,critical loads
(Sverdrup et al., 2007)
24TH CCE WORKSHOP AND 30TH TASK FORCE MEETING / Simon RIZZETTORome, 7th April 2014 10
I. iii. ForSAFE parameterization
Always interacting with the modellers regular model improvements on:
- Input variables: hard work on original dataunits variables adapted for ecological representativity
- Model code and sites characteristics: integration of
light requirements (Ellenberg et al., 1992; Gardiner et al., 2009)
nitrogen foliar retention (Hagen-Thorn et al., 2006)
relative foliar composition in terms of Basic Cations and Nitrogen (Sariyildiz and Anderson, 2005)
fine roots distribution in the soil (Bolte and Löf, 2010; Bolte and Villanueva, 2006…)
24TH CCE WORKSHOP AND 30TH TASK FORCE MEETING / Simon RIZZETTORome, 7th April 2014 11
I. iii. Model validationValidation: soil solution data (example of one spruce site)
Comparisons between measured and simulated data:Significative statistic tests
Measured dataSimulated data
STORM
Differences between measured and simulated data for nitrogen… underlined by many authors de Vries et al. 2010
2. impact of natural disturbances on the woodland
Two hypothesis:
1. lack of retroaction by the vegetation (Moore et al. 2007) development of the GRAFT module by Swedish modellers
24TH CCE WORKSHOP AND 30TH TASK FORCE MEETING / Simon RIZZETTORome, 7th April 2014 12
II. Results
24TH CCE WORKSHOP AND 30TH TASK FORCE MEETING / Simon RIZZETTORome, 7th April 2014 13
II.i. Results: deposition scenarios
0200400600800
10001200
1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100Dep
ositi
on (e
q.ha
-1.y
r-1)
Année
Input deposition scenarios
CLEGPMFRBKD
Soil solution parameters are hardly impacted by deposition scenarios,
but not only…
- Important similar variations in the
soil solution response for each
scenario
For each selected site:
higher impact observed on CLE and GP scenarios on BSat
and BC
24TH CCE WORKSHOP AND 30TH TASK FORCE MEETING / Simon RIZZETTORome, 7th April 2014 14
II.ii. Results analysis
Clear cut Clear cut
ForSAFE improvement:
forest management parameters as input data:
- age of the woodland
- past and future cuts calendar
- species growth characteristics and wood volumes possibly collected
Soil solution parameters are impacted by: - forest management (short time scale)- deposition scenarios (long time scale)
24TH CCE WORKSHOP AND 30TH TASK FORCE MEETING / Simon RIZZETTORome, 7th April 2014 15
II.i. Results: climate change scenarios
- Impact of deposition scenarios (CLE > MFR)
Soil solution parameters impacted by:- forest management on a short time
scale- deposition and climate change on a
long time scale
- Obvious impact of climate change by 2080
- Observation:Impactdeposition < ImpactClimate change
- No difference between CC and deposition during short term periods after clear cuts
24TH CCE WORKSHOP AND 30TH TASK FORCE MEETING / Simon RIZZETTORome, 7th April 2014 16
II.ii. results: biodiversity indices
69%
Sessile oak Norway Spruce Silver fir0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Evolution of the number of species
2010MFRGPCLE
Spec
ies n
umbe
r
%: loss of biodiversity
58%53%
46%49%
54%
31%29%
39%
Oak Spruce Fir18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
C/N evolution
2010MFRCLEGPC/
N
Oak Spruce Fir4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
pH evolution
2010MFRCLEGPpH
2100
21002100
24TH CCE WORKSHOP AND 30TH TASK FORCE MEETING / Simon RIZZETTORome, 7th April 2014 17
Conclusion - Discussion
- ImpactCLE > ImpactMFR on basic cations and [N] in soil solution at century scale
BUT
- Climate change hardly impacts base saturation due to increase of mineralization
i.e.: soil T°C = mineralization = [Basic cations]
- Forest management impacts soil solution parameters on a short time scale
- C/N and pH seem to not be sensitive enough to quantify “net loss of biodiversity”
- Ecosystem, habitat and species effects exist actually
24TH CCE WORKSHOP AND 30TH TASK FORCE MEETING / Simon RIZZETTORome, 7th April 2014 18
III.ii. Prospects: vegetation response
- Input data extrapolation
- Results extrapolation on all the 102 sites- - Spatialisation at a continue scale
Work on the VEG table still in progress:
- species biological characteristics and/or species physiological and ecological response- need to add simulation on vegetation with VEG table- and vegetation feedback with the GRAFT module
Thank you for your attention !
Simon RIZZETTO1,2, Salim BELYAZID3, Noémie GAUDIO1,2, Arnaud MANSAT1,2, Harald SVERDRUP4, Anne PROBST1,2
En collaboration avec : Jean-Claude GÉGOUT5, Emmanuel CORCKET6, Didier ALARD6, Manuel NICOLAS7
1 Toulouse University; INP, UPS; EcoLab (Laboratoire écologie fonctionnelle et environnement) ENSAT, Avenue de l’Agrobiopole F-31326 Castanet Tolosan, France2 CNRS; EcoLab F-31326 Castanet Tolosan3 Belyazid Consulting and Communication AB Österportsgatan 5C S-21128 Malmö, Sweden4 Applied Systems Analysis and Dynamics Group, Chemical Engineering, Lund University, Box 124 S-22100 Lund, Sweden5 UMR LERFoB, AgroParisTech – ENGREF – INRA, 14 rue Girardet, F54042 Nancy cedex, France6 UMR BioGeco, INRA, Université Bordeaux1, Site de Recherches Forêt Bois de Pierroton, 69 route d'Arcachon, 33612
CESTAS Cedex – France7 Office National des Forêts, Direction Forêts et Risques Naturels, Département R&D, Boulevard de Constance, F-77300
Fontainebleau, France